Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma
“Adopted Son Has Equal Rights as Natural Born Son in Coparcenary Property”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that an adopted son becomes a coparcener in the adoptive family with the same rights as a natural-born son, entitled to claim ancestral property by survivorship.
The Bottom Line
On valid adoption, the adopted child is transplanted into the adopting family with full coparcenary rights, severing all ties with the natural family.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Adoption Performed
Narasappa adopted Basavarajappa with proper giving and taking ceremonies
Adoption Performed
Narasappa adopted Basavarajappa with proper giving and taking ceremonies
Adoption Registered
Adoption deed registered with signatures of adoptive and natural fathers
Adoption Registered
Adoption deed registered with signatures of adoptive and natural fathers
Death of Narasappa
Narasappa died intestate, triggering succession dispute
Death of Narasappa
Narasappa died intestate, triggering succession dispute
Partition Suit Filed
Gurubasamma filed suit claiming 1/8th share in property
Partition Suit Filed
Gurubasamma filed suit claiming 1/8th share in property
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court restored trial court decree, recognizing adopted son as coparcener
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court restored trial court decree, recognizing adopted son as coparcener
The Story
Narasappa, a Hindu male, died intestate on 13.05.1982, leaving behind an adopted son (the appellant Basavarajappa), seven daughters, and a granddaughter. The appellant was the natural son of Shankarawwa, one of Narasappa's daughters who had predeceased him.
Narasappa had adopted the appellant on 09.05.1978, when proper ceremonies of giving and taking in adoption were performed at Narasappa's house in presence of their spiritual guru. The adoption was formally registered on 14.12.1978, signed by both Narasappa and the appellant's natural father.
After Narasappa's death, Gurubasamma (one of his daughters) filed a partition suit claiming 1/8th share in the property left behind, contending that all heirs should share equally. The appellant contested this, arguing that as an adopted son and coparcener, he was entitled to half the property by survivorship.
The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the properties were ancestral in nature and the appellant became a coparcener upon adoption. The first appellate court and High Court reversed this, reducing the appellant's share. The matter reached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Adopted son becomes coparcener upon adoption
The appellant argued that upon valid adoption, he became a coparcener with Narasappa and was entitled to half the property by survivorship upon Narasappa's death.
Adoption severs ties with natural family
Under Section 12, an adopted child is deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes, completely severing ties with the natural family.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Adoption does not divest existing rights
The respondents contended that adoption should not divest Narasappa of his property rights, and all heirs should share equally.
Equal inheritance rights
All children, including daughters, should inherit equally under the Hindu Succession Act.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme of Sections 11, 12, and 14 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and held that upon adoption, the adopted child becomes a coparcener in the adopted family after severing all ties with the natural family.
On adoption, adoptee gets transplanted in adopting family with the same rights as that of natural-born son.
Para Para 15
This establishes the complete integration of adopted child into the adoptive family.
Under the classical Hindu law, the adopted son acquires the rights of a son of the adoptive family; he loses all the rights of a son in his natural family.
Para Para 18
This confirms the complete severance from the natural family upon adoption.
On adoption the adopted child would become a coparcener in the adopted family.
Para Para 22
This directly answers the central question about coparcenary rights of adopted sons.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Appellant declared entitled to half share in ancestral property as coparcener; daughters entitled to 1/18th share each in remaining half.
Directions Issued
- The appellant (adopted son) is entitled to half share in the ancestral property by survivorship
- Remaining half to be divided among all legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act
- Each female heir entitled to 1/18th share in properties except the dwelling house
- Appellant alone entitled to dwelling house during his lifetime, subject to proviso of Section 23
Key Legal Principles Established
An adopted son becomes a coparcener in the adoptive family with rights identical to a natural-born son
Adoption completely severs all ties with the natural family
The adopted son acquires interest in ancestral property by birth right upon adoption
Property rights of adopted son relate back to the date of adoption
Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act applies to dwelling houses in ancestral property
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you adopt a son, he will have full property rights equal to your natural-born children
- The adopted child completely leaves his natural family and becomes part of your family
- Daughters have limited rights to the family dwelling house during the adopted son's lifetime
- Adoption must follow proper ceremonies of giving and taking to be valid
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 12
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
“An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption.”
Relevance: Creates the legal fiction of adopted child being natural-born child of adoptive parents.
Section 14
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
“The adoption shall not affect property which vested in the adopted child before adoption, and the adopted child shall continue to have the same rights.”
Relevance: Preserves pre-existing property rights of adopted child.
Section 6
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary.”
Relevance: Governs devolution of coparcenary property upon death.
Section 23
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“Where a Hindu intestate has left surviving him or her both male and female heirs and his or her property includes a dwelling-house wholly occupied by members of his or her family, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the right of any female heir to claim partition of the dwelling-house shall not arise until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein.”
Relevance: Restricts partition rights of female heirs in dwelling houses.
Related Cases & Precedents
Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh
followed(1983) 3 SCC 376
Property inherited from father becomes joint family property in hands of sons.
Sitabai v. Ramchandra
citedAIR 1970 SC 343
On adoption, adopted son is to be treated as having been born in the adoptive family.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.